Photo by Marga Santoso on Unsplash
$943 million. That is what Citadel Securities reportedly paid brokers for retail U.S. equity and options order flow over a single nine-month period, with roughly $732 million of that directed specifically at options. That number is not a fee for a service. It is a price paid for an informational and positional advantage that the retail investor on the other side of the trade never consented to sell. The architecture of payment for order flow (PFOF) stands as one of the clearest examples in modern finance of a system built to transfer value from one class of participant to another, while structuring the transfer so that the disadvantaged party cannot easily see it happening.
Note on sourcing: the specific $943 million figure originates from industry reporting and is consistent with figures cited in multiple financial trade publications covering the nine-month period. The directional claim, that large market makers pay billions annually for retail order flow and that options flow commands a premium over equity flow, is well-supported by SEC reporting, broker 606 disclosures, and public academic research. Where specific figures are used below, that distinction is maintained.
What Citadel Securities Is Actually Buying With PFOF
Citadel Securities PFOF Spending Breakdown (9-Month Period)
Source: Industry reporting, SEC 606 disclosures
When Robinhood, Webull, or TD Ameritrade routes a retail order to Citadel Securities instead of to a public exchange, they are not doing the retail customer a neutral favor. They are selling something. What they are selling is called order flow, and the reason it has value is specific: retail orders are, in aggregate, the least informed orders in any market. They are not based on material nonpublic information. They are not front-running an earnings announcement or a central bank decision. They are people buying Tesla because they read about it, or selling SPY because they are scared.
That predictability is the product. Citadel Securities, as a market maker, profits from the bid-ask spread. By internalizing a retail order against their own inventory, they earn that spread without exposing themselves to a counterparty who knows more than they do. The SEC's own 2022 equity market structure proposal acknowledged this dynamic explicitly: market makers will pay for order flow precisely because internalizing it is more profitable than trading on lit exchanges against a mixed pool of informed and uninformed flow.
Options flow compounds this. An options order carries embedded leverage, directional information, and a spread structure that is almost always wider than the equivalent equity spread. The reported $732 million directed at options flow, out of a total $943 million over nine months, suggests options represent roughly 77 percent of Citadel Securities' PFOF expenditure. If that ratio holds even approximately, it tells you where the margin lives. Options retail flow is worth more per dollar of notional because the spread capture is richer and the counterparty sophistication is, on average, lower than that of institutional options desks.
Broker 606 disclosures, which the SEC requires quarterly, let you see how much your broker received per hundred shares or per contract. The numbers are small individually. Aggregated across millions of trades and tens of millions of retail accounts, they become the nine-figure sums that make PFOF a line item worth fighting over between Citadel Securities, Susquehanna International Group, and Virtu Financial.
Why Peer Markets Have Banned Payment for Order Flow
Why Options Flow Commands a Premium Over Equity Flow
Source: SEC market structure proposal 2022, academic research on PFOF
The United Kingdom banned payment for order flow in 2024, with the FCA's rules coming into force after years of regulatory debate over whether brokers receiving payment to route orders to a specific venue could simultaneously claim to be acting in the client's best execution interest. [FACT-CORRECTED: the UK ban took effect in 2024, not 2012 as previously stated.] The European Union effectively prohibited it under MiFID II on the same rationale. Canada prohibits it. Australia restricts it to the point of functional irrelevance. The regulatory consensus outside the United States holds that PFOF creates a structural conflict of interest that cannot be adequately disclosed away.
The U.S. regulatory posture has been different, and that difference has a history. The practice was pioneered by Bernard Madoff's broker-dealer in the late 1980s and early 1990s, not the fraudulent fund but the separate, legitimate market-making operation, as a way to compete for retail order flow before electronic markets existed. The mechanism worked then and it works now for the same reason: the broker's fiduciary or best-execution obligation runs to the client, but the broker's economic incentive runs to the party paying for the orders. Disclosure, which the SEC has required since 2000 under Rule 606, does not resolve that conflict. It documents it.
The SEC under Gary Gensler proposed abolishing or restructuring PFOF in 2022 with a package of equity market structure reforms that included order competition rules. Those rules would have required retail orders to be exposed to competitive auctions before internalization. By late 2024, the rules had been substantially weakened or delayed under political and industry pressure. The regulatory environment as of mid-2026 has not materially changed the core PFOF structure. Citadel Securities, Virtu, and Susquehanna continue to be the dominant buyers of retail flow.
What does it mean that the U.S. maintains a practice that every major peer market has concluded is incompatible with investor protection? At minimum, it means the design reflects a choice. Someone benefits from the current structure being preserved, and the entities paying nearly a billion dollars per nine months for access to retail orders have an obvious and quantifiable interest in that preservation.
The Spread Retail Investors Never See Captured
Global Regulatory Status of Payment for Order Flow
Source: FCA, MiFID II, SEC, public regulatory records
The standard defense of PFOF is price improvement. Citadel Securities and its peers argue, and have data to support, that they frequently fill retail orders at prices better than the National Best Bid and Offer (NBBO). This is true in a narrow sense. A retail market order for 100 shares of Apple might get filled a tenth of a cent better than the posted best price. That improvement is real. It is also the smaller part of the story.
The larger part is what does not get measured in a broker's 606 disclosure or a market maker's price improvement statistics: the value of the informational signal. When Citadel Securities internalizes a large volume of retail flow, it builds a real-time picture of retail sentiment and positioning that no individual retail participant can access. That aggregate signal, updated continuously, has value in their broader market-making and risk management operations that is entirely separate from the per-trade spread they capture.
There is also the question of what does not happen when orders are internalized. An order that goes to Citadel Securities and gets filled against their inventory never reaches a public exchange. It contributes nothing to price discovery in the lit market, and it leaves no trace on the tape. Dark pools allow institutional orders to execute without moving the lit market bid-ask, and PFOF internalization does something analogous for retail flow: the publicly visible price reflects only the portion of order activity that actually reaches exchanges. [FACT-CORRECTED: Robinhood has historically routed well above 80 percent of order flow to off-exchange venues, making the prior "40 to 50 percent or more" framing a significant understatement of observed practice.] When a major zero-commission broker routes the large majority of its order flow to off-exchange venues, the lit market bid-ask on your screen becomes a partial picture.
The SEC's 2023 academic literature review on this subject found that markets with higher PFOF-driven internalization rates showed measurably wider effective spreads on exchanges, precisely because the low-information retail flow that market makers prefer to trade against was being siphoned off before reaching the public book. The exchange becomes the venue of last resort for harder-to-fill, higher-adverse-selection orders. Retail investors see a clean interface with tight spreads quoted. What they cannot see is that those quoted spreads exist in a market that has been systematically stripped of the most benign order flow.
Reading the $943 Million as a Market Structure Signal
Step back from the trade level and read the number as an organizational fact. Citadel Securities is paying approximately $100 million per month, on the reported nine-month trajectory, for access to retail equity and options flow. A rational business does not sustain that expenditure unless the revenue extracted from that flow exceeds the cost by a meaningful margin. The profit on internalized retail flow, after paying for it, is the floor. Everything above the cost is pure arbitrage on the information and execution asymmetry.
This is not a criticism of Citadel Securities as an actor. They are operating legally within a designed system. The more structurally informative question is: who designed the system this way, and who has the resources to keep it this way? The lobbying expenditures of major market makers and broker-dealers on market structure regulation are disclosed, in aggregate, in OpenSecrets and SEC comment letter databases. When the 2022 order competition rule drew more than 2,000 comment letters, many came from brokers and market makers whose business models depend on the current routing architecture.
Retail investors, specifically the ones whose order flow is being purchased, submitted essentially no comment letters. They were not at the table where the rule was being shaped. This is not a failure of their individual sophistication. It reflects a structural feature of regulatory design: the parties with concentrated financial interests in an outcome participate in shaping it, while the parties with diffuse interests generally do not. The result, compounded across decades of market structure policy, is a system in which nine-figure payments for retail order flow are legal, normalized, and defended as beneficial to the very people whose orders are being sold.
The options skew in the reported figures deserves one more pass. With roughly $732 million of the $943 million directed at options flow, the implied market maker economics on retail options are significantly richer than on equities. Options spreads, even on liquid names like SPY or QQQ, are wider in relative terms than equity spreads. A retail investor buying a single-leg call on a mid-cap stock is almost certainly trading against a market maker who is simultaneously hedging, capturing the spread, and updating their aggregate retail sentiment model in real time. The retail investor sees a fill. The market maker sees a data point in a continuous stream worth hundreds of millions of dollars annually.
The nine-month $943 million figure, verified or directionally accurate, is not a scandal. It is a price. It is what the informational and positional advantage embedded in retail order flow is worth to the parties sophisticated enough to monetize it. The retail investor's role in this system is not as a customer. It is as the raw material. Understanding that distinction does not change the rules, but it does change what questions you should be asking before you place your next market order through a zero-commission app.
This article is for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute financial, investment, or legal advice. The views expressed are analytical observations and should not be relied upon for personal financial decisions. Always consult a qualified financial advisor before making investment decisions.